Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

resobscura.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#61

Post by ethbr1 »

dkarl wrote: post #47
ethbr1 wrote: post #22

It's curious how people are responding to the title, rather than the post, which touches on the title but is mostly about another thing: >> There’s something beguiling about the thought that a simple arrangement of lines might explain the world — like seeing human history as an enormous game of Civilization 6. But of course, that’s also the problem with using maps as a way of understanding history. If you’re not care…

The intentions don't just affect the way the data is presented, but can affect the underlying data itself. For example, the "German Claims in Africa" shows vast areas as "German claims" on what must be very shaky justification. The presentation is very clear, but the data is misleading.

Intentions absolutely affect both the data and presentation! Because one cannot summarize without editorializing.

F.ex. the "German Claims in Africa according to Professor Delbruck" map appears to originate in a British publication [0], in the context of a "German aims in Africa" section [1]...

>> [Beginning with] "It might be thought that even the rapacity of Prussia could hardly fail to be satisfied with such wholesale spoliation of territory such as this, but the foregoing [European territorial] terms by no means exhaust the demands which are to be made of the striken foe."

>> "The idea that at the end of the war Germany would make enormous acquisitions in Africa was just as popularly believed and lingered just as tenaciously in the Teuton mind as the delusions with regards to the European settlement. As late as the Summer of 1917 the well-known German historian, Professor Delbruck, gives the following interesting account of German's aims in this directions [... Prof Delbruck's quote...] [...] I have therefore reduced it to map form in order that a comparison may be made between these two pathetic tributes to the tenacity of German hopes (See Map 13)."

So the map that we're looking at is a British graphical depiction of something a German military historian said, provided in the context of demonstrating that German colonial claims in Africa are over-optimistic and -broad with regard to their military performance by the end of WWI.

And yet the intent behind the creation of that map is largely lost by viewers.

The blog post captions it as "Putative German claims in Africa amounted to nearly half the continent" which is more or less accurate, albeit leaving out the fact that the map is apparently a British creation.

The British component possibly affected the precise boundaries as drawn, as well as the decision to make British and German colors similar, so as to decrease the obviousness of British colonies and emphasize the monolithic nature of desired German African colonies.

[0] Maps 12 and 13 from "The British Dominions Year Book 1918" https://maps.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_dominion...

[1] "The British Dominions Year Book 1918" https://books.google.com/books?id=wiI0AAAAMAAJ&vq=africa&pg=...

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#62

Post by jjk166 »

gustavus wrote: post #15
ftxbro wrote: post #4

This blogpost seemed tenuous to me. - cannae is a famous historical battle - the map of the battle was drawn sixty years after the battle - a german military leader studied the battle - germany was in ww1

The argument is a little bit stronger than that if your familiar with the specifics. Which goes more like - Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen is obssesed with the battle of Canne - Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen's entire life's work is to figure out how to beat France and Russia. - Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen writes a plan which becomes the sacred text of how the German army is to conduct a two front w…

> - Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen writes a plan which becomes the sacred text of how the German army is to conduct a two front war against France and Russia. One of the critical parts of that plan is marching a truly massive German army through neutral Belgium.

> - When France Germany and Russia go to war Germany following the Schlieffen plan marches through Belgium triggering UK involvement in the war.

Neither of these points are true. Schlieffen produced several different war plans for different potential scenarios and in WW1 Germany wound up following a very heavily modified version of one of those plans. While Britain officially gave the violation of Belgian neutrality as its reason for entering the war, and it certainly swayed public opinion in favor of the conflict, they had signed a treaty with France in 1911 pledging military support in the event of a German invasion regardless; and more generally had been in an increasingly antagonistic relationship with Germany for years.

Perhaps had Schlieffen not been so obsessed with Cannae he would have made different recomendations, but the fact is that the rest of the German general staff generally agreed with the logic behind those recomendations. Then when their plans were put into action, they were largely vindicated as the invasion through Belgium did allow Germany to gain a massive advantage in the opening weeks of the war and sieze territory from which it would take years and millions of men to dislodge them. Indeed the main issue was that the plan assumed Russia would be slow to mobilize, giving the German army time to defeat France before they would have to reposition forces to the eastern front, but to everyone's surprise Russia instead mobilized quickly. A generation later, when the men who were boots on the ground at the time now led the German military, and had decades to study the previous conflict, they decided on attempting a plan that was broadly similar and again had great initial success.

It's possible that Germany employs a totally different strategy in WW1 if Schlieffen isn't obsessed with Cannae, but there's no real evidence that they would.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#63

Post by throwmeouthn »

0xDEF wrote: post #56

It's remarkable how little of what Putin and Russian state median say internally to Russians is covered in Western media. They are obsessed with old maps. A few months ago Putin flaunted a map from the 1700s without Ukraine as proof as that Ukraine has always belonged to Russia and that "Russians" live in all regions of Ukraine (beyond Crimea and Donbas).

[dead]

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#64

Post by jakderrida »

TSiege wrote: post #51
gustavus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue against that interpretation, the importance of invading Belgium had more to do with avoiding the French line of fortresses and hoping that the Belgians would just roll over than capturing rail networks that they wouldn't be able to use without a protracted war, which they had no anticipation of as they expected to be marching into Paris 900 hours after mobilization was declared.

That also makes sense, and has nothing to do with the battle of cannae? Like that seems like a logical tactical decision. Offensive maneuvers are costly for the attacker against well fortified positions, so avoiding them by going around them makes sense as well as using the element of surprise. It also has nothing to do with the 2000 year old battle

> It also has nothing to do with the 2000 year old battle

It has a little bit to do with it, I think, but only in two sense 1. It involved a decisive victory by envelopment which, completely unrelated to Cannae, Germany needed to avoid a two-front war. 2. It's just the go-to military general's example to refer to their own "masterpiece". aka. Schlieffen's Cannae.

I'll agree, though, that it would be equally relevant had Schlieffen called it, "Pulling my goalie to put an extra man on the ice".

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#65

Post by jakderrida »

gustavus wrote: post #13
benbreen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here - yes, this is what I was getting at. The false promise of a rapid victory over the French via encirclement from the right flank (in the style of Hannibal) really was a major factor in justifying the risks of war for the German General Staff. And because Schlieffen was preoccupied with the idea that an ancient battle could be a model for that approach, it distracted from the now-obvious technological chan…

I'd argue against Schlieffen wanting to recreate the battle of Canne, and say that was much more the result of Moltke giving the Crown Prince permission to advance. After all the original Schlieffen plan was to have the Alsace region slowly retreat and give ground enticing the French further in, whereas the right flank that was to wheel through Belgium and strike at Paris was to do all the work. If anyone was going t…

> After all the original Schlieffen plan was to have the Alsace region slowly retreat and give ground enticing the French further in

That actually would be a much better analogy to Cannae. Enticing them to break your center, not realizing until they're surrounded that the victory they've charged into is actually an epic defeat.

I still don't understand why they'd assume French generals would do that, though. It really assumes a hopeless level of ineptitude on their part for it to work. Seems obvious to me they're better off stalling till Russians are mobilized, no matter how enticing the bait is.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#66

Post by jakderrida »

TSiege wrote: post #21
benbreen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here - yes, this is what I was getting at. The false promise of a rapid victory over the French via encirclement from the right flank (in the style of Hannibal) really was a major factor in justifying the risks of war for the German General Staff. And because Schlieffen was preoccupied with the idea that an ancient battle could be a model for that approach, it distracted from the now-obvious technological chan…

If that's the case you're trying to present, your article should be clearer about that. That wikipedia entry also doesn't seem to bolster your case. It doesn't even mention the battle of Cannae, but it does talk extensively about the importance of capturing the Belgian rail network for the German logistics in fighting France

>That wikipedia entry also doesn't seem to bolster your case. It doesn't even mention the battle of Cannae

In his defense, the Britannica entry does mention it. https://www.britannica.com/event/Schlieffen-Plan In your defense, you are right.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#67

Post by mytailorisrich »

dkarl wrote: post #47
ethbr1 wrote: post #22

It's curious how people are responding to the title, rather than the post, which touches on the title but is mostly about another thing: >> There’s something beguiling about the thought that a simple arrangement of lines might explain the world — like seeing human history as an enormous game of Civilization 6. But of course, that’s also the problem with using maps as a way of understanding history. If you’re not care…

The intentions don't just affect the way the data is presented, but can affect the underlying data itself. For example, the "German Claims in Africa" shows vast areas as "German claims" on what must be very shaky justification. The presentation is very clear, but the data is misleading.

The justification to the European "scramble to Africa" is that they could. Claims were also starting points for negotiations among European countries based on relative power and perhaps give and take in other domains or geographical areas.

Historically, and to a point up to this day, territorial claims are a power play. Either you're powerful enough to enforce them (through possession, defence, threats) or you are not. And the justification to seeking territory is of course to increase power and resources.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#68

Post by jacquesm »

I remember crossing from France into Spain and back again somewhere in the early 80's, when Europe definitely still had physical borders and not realizing I had done so until it had happened. My surprise stemmed in part from the fact that on the map there was a clear line and in real life there was absolutely nothing at all. It really helped me to understand once and for all that maps are just pieces of paper and that it's the real world that counts. Of course a days walk further where the highway entered Spain you'd have been stopped and asked for your passport. But high up in the countryside nobody really cared about where precisely that border was, the path is then on this side of the border and a little while later on the other. And this was at a time when the Basque separatist movement was very active with regular bombings. So the lack of a border and associated controls was in a way something that you wouldn't expect at all.

Now, with Schengen in full effect all over Europe crossing a border is something that usually involves seeing some buildings without a purpose in the middle of a highway. The only time I have been stopped inside the Schengen area for document checks was during the COVID era and it felt pretty weird not to be able to just go from Amsterdam to Riga without such checks.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#69

Post by gustavus »

rexpop wrote: post #53
gustavus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a couple of points of clarifications > specifically the battle of cannae, leading to world war one is pretty weak. I buy that German generals were obsessed with the battle, So not just the German generals specifically Schlieffen. The Schlieffen plan developed by it's namesake general was the governing document for the German plan of battle at the beginning of WW1. Schlieffen spent his entire life trying to figure…

> forces more than men were dictating things > one general smashed his telephone so that it could not be rescinded Seems like your "forces more than men" are actually just "more men." Arguably, though, you're describing ideology or mythos, eg "Der tag!"[0] 0. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anecdotes-from-the-arch...

To an extant yes, but another example where it seemed forces more than men moved things was Verdun. Halfway through the battle both the Germans and the French generals commanding the armies wanted to pull out because it was so horrible, but the Germans were so close to a victory they couldn't pull out after all the blood that had been spilt being so close to victory, meanwhile the French couldn't give a single inch of ground for doing so would mean the loss of Verdun, which was a monument of national pride, and so for three hundred and three days below the sun the battle carried, father and son fell one by one.

The war is replete with similar examples, and sure we can call it mythos or ideology or something like that, but it is clear there were times in the war that even had the generals and the populace wanted things to be different it was near impossible to change and men continued thrown into the meat grinder.

Re: Historical maps probably helped cause World War I

#70

Post by gustavus »

mighmi wrote: post #49
gustavus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a couple of points of clarifications > specifically the battle of cannae, leading to world war one is pretty weak. I buy that German generals were obsessed with the battle, So not just the German generals specifically Schlieffen. The Schlieffen plan developed by it's namesake general was the governing document for the German plan of battle at the beginning of WW1. Schlieffen spent his entire life trying to figure…

> The Schlieffen plan developed by it's namesake general The Schlieefen plan didn't exist. > The Schlieffen memorandum of 1905, with its 1906 supplement, was not a plan. It was not operational. It did not go into details or issue orders David Frmokin's Europe's Last Summer Terence Zuber's Inventing the Schlieefen Plan shows that the "plan" was written in a memorandum at his retirement, which his daughter kept in her…

My friend, I have been eagerly gobbling up all the good literature I can get my hands on recently, do you have any suggestions on books that you feel do a decent job of examining the Shlieefen Plan?

Besides The Guns of August which I just finished last month.

Post reply on HN